PFS issue on Venus Express, PFS scanner stuck in its closed position |
PFS issue on Venus Express, PFS scanner stuck in its closed position |
Mar 21 2006, 09:03 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 370 Joined: 12-September 05 From: France Member No.: 495 |
Bad news for PFS. I hope they will be able to solve this issue.
The PFS scanner is stuck in its closed position. Several attempts to move it were made at the time, but the instrument did not respond. Experts suspected a thermal problem by which low temperatures were blocking the rotation of the mechanism. Another attempt to move the scanner was made on 16 March 2006, in warmer flight conditions. Unfortunately, the scanner remains stuck. The next opportunity to perform another test on the spacecraft will be end of April, after the Venus Orbit Insertion. From http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=38964 |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 04:49 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
I've wondered if missions shouldn't start adding "engineering webcams", similar to the Hazcams on MER that are there to monitor deployments and moving parts on sciencecraft. It might not have helped Galileo, but then again knowing the exact configuration of the antenna might have allowed for some kind of partial recovery by simulating the antenna coverage pattern.
-------------------- Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
-- "The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality. |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Mar 23 2006, 04:56 PM
Post
#3
|
Guests |
I've wondered if missions shouldn't start adding "engineering webcams", similar to the Hazcams on MER that are there to monitor deployments and moving parts on sciencecraft. It might not have helped Galileo, but then again knowing the exact configuration of the antenna might have allowed for some kind of partial recovery by simulating the antenna coverage pattern. In Galileo's case, while live imaging of the HGA deployment wasn't possible, I seem to recall that NIMS took an image of the spacecraft during cruise (I saw it in AW&ST) that gave a rough idea of the post-deployment antenna configuration. And analyses during cruise showed that the anomalous HGA deployment did not result in any usuable gain/side lobe patterns. There is no commonality between the aparant failure of the PFS cover, and MARSIS or the Huygens problem. I know you like to think outside the box, but that's just wayyy waAYy outside it The only obvious commonality would be quality assurance inspections or pre-launch reviews but, as any U.S. scientist/engineer can tell you, even those can't catch everything. This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Mar 23 2006, 05:24 PM |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:25 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |